1. We discussed different types of information; we examined three news sites (FoxNews, CNN, LATimes) to compare the similarities and differences between them; and we did an exercise in which we asked questions based upon an original question.
2. All the points are important to me. Information is the keystone of any society, without it society could not exist. The news is the main source of information on current events for almost all the world; whoever controls the mass media controls the attention of the globe. And questioning is by far the most important, because how could I even know why information or news websites are important to me if I was not able to ask myself the question, why do I think these things are important to me?
3. I think I'll try to find a circumspect arrangement of sources when opinion is involved, in order to reduce bias.
4. Authority is a problem in itself. By what ways do we judge what kind of information has authority, and how do we know we are using good judgement? The use of scientific modes of thought? How do we know scientific thought is sound to begin with? Can experiments be manipulated to achieve a desired result? And what about issues that are beyond the bounds of scientific thought?
Does authority come with a distinguished name and a graduate degree? Is authority a social construct? If it is a social construct, then does authority have any concrete, non-subjective credibility?
5. Topic development leaves a trail of clues, questions, for the sleuth of knowledge. By piecing together this puzzle of questions, she can begin to see the answer that lies within them all. Most people call these sleuths geniuses, but the genius is actually in their method of inquiry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Can you give me an example of "a circumspect arrangement of sources when opinion is involved"? Is that simply a variety of different sources or does this mean something else?
You have some really good questions in item 4. As you are discovering, more and more questions emerge as one thinks and explores. Fascinating, isn't it?!
Is genius in the "method of inquiry" or in the development of questions and the observation of results, which in turn leads to more questions?
For an example: consider that I'm putting forth the opinion that war is wrong. I would acknowledge opposing opinions, opinions that state that it's only wrong in certain instances, etc. Not a variety of sources, but a diversity of sources is what I'm looking for.
Yes, I agree, but I think my opinion might be questionable.
And is not the development of questions and observations of the results a sort of method?
Post a Comment